There is no safe level of radiation
Medical wisdom once held that low levels of radiation posed no real threat to human health-and therefore dilution of radioactive discharges in the oceans could be justified. The consensus of scientific opinion today, however, is that no level of radiation can be dismissed as harmless and that, in fact, any dose of radiation from reprocessing waste, no matter how small, will increase the risk of cancer and genetic damage.

The British and French reprocessing facilities now discharge more than 40 different radioactive substances. Many of the radionuclides discharged do not exist at any significant level in nature, yet they are now entering the environment and the food chain in enormous quantities. Although scientific knowledge of the long-term effects of these materials is limited, every review of recommended radiation limits for workers and the general public has revised the accepted levels downward.

To cite one example, Iodine-129 is among the radiotoxic materials released at dramatically increasing levels. When ingested in food, iodine-129 enters the bloodstream and accumulates in the thyroid. There, the gamma radiation it emits can destroy thyroid cells, impairing the production of necessary hormones. Damage to the thyroid of a foetus can cause mental retardation and other severe developmental abnormalities. Iodine-129 remains dangerous for millions of years.

The danger posed by radioactive contamination has been highlighted by studies which found significant levels of childhood leukaemia in local populations near the French and British reprocessing plants. Most recently, a study published by a leading French epidemiologist suggested a direct link between public exposure to radiation around La Hague and the incidence of childhood cancers. Links were suggested between time spent at beaches near La Hague or consumption of seafood and the incidence of cancer. While the government investigates, La Hague continues its discharges.

The nuclear industry frequently defends itself by saying that they release far less radioactivity than already exists naturally. Although the human species has indeed developed against a backdrop of natural radiation, we are now adding additional amounts of naturally occurring radiation, and also introducing dangerous, new isotopes into the environment in staggering quantities. The public's exposure to this radiation poses significant new health risks, beyond those already posed by naturally occurring radiation.

The nuclear industry ultimately falls back on the defence that their discharges remain below authorized limits-which they claim governments would lower if warranted. A conflict of interest, however, impairs setting these limits impartially. The reprocessing facilities' discharges are licensed by the very governments who own the plants. The government agencies authorizing the discharges, unable to set safe levels, instead opt for permissible ones. They make value judgements, weighing public health against such other benefits as employment and profit. These calculations anticipate and account for cancer deaths and other health effects. For example, as part of the authorization process for new Sellafield discharges in 1994, a governmental-appointed committee predicted 200 deaths could result from one year's releases at Sellafield. The U.K. government chose to authorize the discharges.